-
We are satisfied that the notice dated 10th January 2014 impugned in this petition is barred by limitation since it is issued beyond a period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b).
PAVAN MORARKA AND RACHNA MORARKA VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 2 (3) , MUMBAI, THE UNION OF INDIA
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28445 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86634&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Technology only will be considered as made available when the person acquiring such knowledge is possessed of the same enabling him to apply in future at his own.
Autoliv ASP Inc Vs The Dy. C.I.T
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28444 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
There has been a full and true disclosure of the material facts by petitioner and it is a clear case of change of opinion to take a different view relying on the same set of documents. Change in opinion cannot construe 'reason to believe'.
MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 3 (2) & ORS.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28443 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86626&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once the Assessing Officer finds that there was excess stock, in absence of explanation by the assessee, the conclusion is inescapable that the excess stock, if any, was from undisclosed sources.
SURAJ BHAN OIL PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GWALIOR
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28442 (HC-MP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86627&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
For allowing a cash credit, the onus is always on the assessee to substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the A.O. regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the Investor/Share applicants and the genuineness of the transaction.
M/S. ROYAL INFRAMART PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – 21 (4) , NEW DELHI.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28441 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95735&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A protective assessment is very much at par with the substantive one.
JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2) HYDERABAD VERSUS M/S NANCY DIVAKAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28440 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95736&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The bank account of an assessee cannot be held to be the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, thus, no addition under Sec. 68 of the Act could have validly been made in respect of a simpliciter deposit made by the assessee before us in her bank account.
SMT. DHEERAJ DEVI KOTHARI VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAJNANDGAON (C.G.)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28439 (ITAT-RAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95741&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Under section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, an assessee can file a revised return before the completion of assessment or within one year from the end of the respective assessment year whichever is earlier.
SHRI RAJESH DEVRAJ MEHRA VERSUS ITO-10 (1 (2) , MUMBAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28438 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95743&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, the courts are bound to construe them in the ordinary sense in their judgments.
Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd Vs Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28437 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
If the return of income is revised within the prescribed time it does not mean that revised return of income has to be accepted without there being proper reasons for the revision and its acceptability.
Ecohomes Township LLP Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28436 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
This is not a fit case to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for more reasons than one.
CHAMS BRANDING SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28435 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86057&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The amount paid by the assessee to M/s Colo Colour Pvt Ltd is an expenditure in connection with transfer of a capital asset as per section 48(i) of the Act, hence is allowable.
SHRI MAHESH PRATAPSINGH ASHER VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-21 (2) , MUMBAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28434 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95724&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessing officer is directed to delete the addition as it actually pertains to bad debts written off in the books of account.
ADA CELLWORKS WIRELESS ENGG PVT LTD VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX- 15 (1) (1) , MUMBAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28433 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95725&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Activity of running the planetarium for general public at normal rate and earning revenue from shows does not make the activity as non-charitable.
DCIT (E) – 2 (1) , MUMBAI VERSUS NEHRU CENTRE DISCOVERY OF INDIA BUILDING
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28432 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95726&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Provisions of Section 273B can be invoked in the case of the assessee as a reasonable cause for failure could be substantiated.
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-1 NEW DELHI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28431 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95731&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Mere oral submissions or indication that evidences will be provided if revenue asked at later stage shows that the assessee was not at all dispensed the burden of proving his claim that the said income and expenses were part of agricultural income.
BALBHADRASINGH DILIPSINGH JADEJA PROP. OF BANSI ISPAT VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 BHAVNAGAR
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28430 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95732&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CBDT Circular No. 05/2012 dt. Aug 1, 2012 is clarificatory in nature, thus, effective from the date of implementation of Regulation 6.8 of the MCI Regulations, i.e., from Dec 14, 2009.
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28429 (SC) · Section 37(1)
-
Under Section 13(2)(b), the burden of showing that the rent charged by the Assessee was not adequate is on the Revenue.
Hamdard National Foundation (India) Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28428 (HC-DELHI) · Section 13(2)(b)
-
Subsidies that are inseparably connected with the profitable conduct of the business and are incomes derived from the business, thus, eligible for deduction.
Tata Chemicals Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28427 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 80-IB
-
We do not find any infirmity or illegality in initiating the penalty proceedings and the consequential orders passed by the assessing officer as confirmed by the appellate authorities.
M/S RAMAMURTHY METAL DECORATING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LTD., SRI A. RAMAMURTHY VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIRUDHUNAGAR.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28426 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86611&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.